20180196 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210203

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20180196 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/03/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal -2/3/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17. Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180196 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
County: Durham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: CatfishPond_100039_MY1_2020.pdf 10.92MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

•
.^r -Y VF A ,r :P'C k tY A¢ C+i '."4'.00'`, 4 F
f,, �_ i a ,.-„ * „ ,:k.v- Y 'r t.yi'- yi(�:,_. °"W q `- e'
),r
4
- �`� '� � �F �` �u ��$��� .ems:: _� "��* �.
..,,,,.,,.. _, ...,. . „ ,,,,..,..„... ,
_, ..„, , ,, ... ,..,„.„, _ ..., ,4,,,,,i ,..„ ..t,, r,..----k_v- .
2., � -,-).....it.,,,,-;'':',,.
� �i-. .�f3
_ r � 't a lei
MONITORING YEAR 1 CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT NCDEQContractNo. 007424
FINAL DMS Project No. 100039
USAGE Action ID No. 2018-00424
NCDWR Project No. 2018-0196
Data Collection Period:April-December 2020
Draft Submission Date: December 8, 2020
Final Submission Date: February 2,2021
PREPARED FOR:
17717
Quality
DivisionNC ofDepartment Mitigationof ServicesEnvironmental
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
ta/
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Catfish Pond
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation
Services (DIMS). A total of 7,140 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams were restored and
enhanced in Durham County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 3,748.800 stream mitigation units
when calculated along stream centerlines. The Site is located approximately 12 miles north of the City of
Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange/Durham County border (Figure 1). The Site is in
the Neuse River Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201 and NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) Subbasin 03-04-01. The Site contains Catfish Creek and 3 unnamed tributaries. The streams
drain to Mountain Creek, which flows into Little River, the Eno River, and then Falls Lake. Falls Lake is
classified as Water Supply Waters (WS-IV) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). The 20.73-acre Site is
protected with a permanent conservation easement.
The Site is located within a DIMS Targeted Local Watershed as discussed in the 2010 Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP), which highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream restoration
projects (Breeding, 2010). Current and past degradation at the Site includes an in -line pond, extensive
logging, farm road crossings, stream channelization, and livestock access to streams and buffers.
The project goals established in the Catfish Pond Site Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) (Wildlands, 2019)
were completed with consideration of goals and objectives described in the Neuse River RBRP. The
project goals established include:
• Exclude cattle from project streams;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime;
• Improve the stability of stream channels;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses.
The project will contribute to achieving goals for the watershed discussed in the Neuse River RBRP and
provide ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While benefits such as habitat improvement
and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, others, such as reduced pollutant and sediment loading,
have farther reaching effects.
Site construction, seeding, and tree planting were completed in March and April 2020. As -built surveys
were conducted in March and April 2020. Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments and site visits were
completed in October and November 2020 to assess the conditions of the project.
Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream success criteria for MY1. The average
vegetation plot stem density for the Site is 544 planted stems per acre and is therefore on track to meet
the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Sporadic populations of multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
along with scattered stems of princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima) were treated with various herbicide application approaches in May and September 2020.
Follow up treatments are scheduled for winter 2020/2021. Project streams are stable and functioning.
Cross -sections show slight deviations from as -built due to sediment deposition and the establishment of
vegetation. A bankfull event was documented on both Catfish Creek Reach 6 and UT1 Reach 2 during
MY1.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final

CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 1-3
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment 1-4
1.2.7 Adaptive Management Plan 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3-3b Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
Table 5a-d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Tables—Metadata
Table 9a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 9b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Table 12a-d Monitoring Data—Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final ii

Monthly Rainfall Data
30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Table 14 Wetland Gauge Summary
Groundwater Gauge Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
114/ Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final iii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Durham County approximately 12 miles north of the
City of Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange/Durham County border (Figure 1).The Site
is located within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed, which is within the Neuse River Basin. Both the
Neuse River and Falls Lake have been designated as Nutrient Sensitive Water.The Site is within
Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201020040 and is located within the Neuse River Targeted Local Watershed
(Figure 1) as identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Priorities(RBRP) (Breeding, 2010).The Site is in the
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998).The project watershed consists
primarily of agricultural and forested land. Approximately 197 acres drain to the downstream end of
Catfish Creek and 30 acres drain to Mountain Tributary for a total Site drainage area of 227 acres.
The project streams consist of Catfish Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, and Mountain
Tributary). Mitigation work within the Site included restoration and enhancement II of 7,140 linear feet
of intermittent and perennial stream channels (Figure 2 and Table 1).The riparian areas were planted
with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality.The final Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2019)was submitted to and accepted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in July 2019. Construction activities were completed by
Main Stream Earthwork, Inc. in March 2020. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. and Canady's Landscaping and Erosion in March and April 2020. Baseline
monitoring (MVO)was conducted in March and April 2020. Annual monitoring will occur for seven years
with the closeout anticipated to commence in 2027 provided the success criteria are met. Appendix 1
provides additional details on project activity, history, contact information, and background information
for the Site.
The Site is located on 2 parcels under single ownership. A conservation easement was recorded on 20.73
acres.The project is expected to provide 3,748.800 stream mitigation units (SMU) at closeout. A Project
Vicinity Map and directions are provided in Figure 1 and a Project Component/Asset Map is illustrated in
Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, one of the primary causes of degradation on the Site was the creation of
an in-line pond on Catfish Creek Reach 6 sometime between 1940 and 1955. During that same time
extensive logging and farm road construction took place at the Site. In 1972, aerial photographs suggest
that portions of UT1 had been straightened for agricultural purposes. Catfish Creek above and below the
pond, UT2, and Mountain Tributary showed few signs of channel manipulation, but were impaired due
to historical livestock access.Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 10a-b in Appendix 4 present additional
information on pre-restoration conditions.
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits helping achieve goals for the watershed
discussed in the Neuse River RBRP. While benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic
stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient and sediment loading have farther reaching effects.
The table below describes expected outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides
project goals and objectives.The project goals and objectives were developed as part of the Mitigation
Plan (Wildlands, 2019) considering the goals and objectives listed in the Neuse River RBRP and strive to
maximize ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 1-1

Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes
Install fencing around Reduce and control sediment inputs; reduce and
Exclude cattle from conservation easements adjacent manage nutrient inputs; reduce and manage fecal
project streams. to cattle pastures to remove coliform inputs. Contribute to protection of or
livestock. improvement to a Water Supply Waterbody.
Reconnect channels Reconstruct stream channels for
with floodplains and bankfull dimensions and depth Raise water table and hydrate riparian wetlands.
riparian wetlands to relative to the existing floodplain. Allow more frequent flood flows to disperse on the
allow a natural Remove existing berms to re- floodplain.Support geomorphology and higher-
flooding regime.
connect channel with adjacent level functions.
wetlands.
Improve the Construct stream channels that Significantly reduce sediment inputs from bank
will maintain stable cross-
stability of stream erosion. Reduce shear stress on channel boundary.
channels. sections, patterns,and profiles Support all stream functions above hydrology.
over time.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles,cover/lunker Increase and diversify available habitats for
Improve instream logs, and brush toes into macroinvertebrates,fish,and amphibians leading
habitat. restored/enhanced streams.Add to colonization and increase in biodiversity over
woody materials to channel beds. time.Add complexity including LWD to streams.
Construct pools of varying depth.
Restore and Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and
enhance native Plant native tree and understory runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in
floodplain and species in riparian zone and plant floodplain. Provide riparian habitat.Add a source
streambank appropriate species on of LWD and organic material to stream.Support all
vegetation. streambank. stream functions.
Permanently
protect the project Establish conservation easements Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian
Site from harmful on the Site. corridor and direct impact to streams and
wetlands.Support all stream functions.
uses.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) to assess the
condition of the project.The vegetation, stream, and hydrology success criteria for the Site follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). During baseline
monitoring (MVO) a total of six standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots and one 5-meter by 20-
meter vegetation plot were established within the project easement area. An additional two random
vegetation plots are monitored annually, in which a new center point is arbitrarily chosen each year
within the conservation easement.
The final vegetation success criteria at the end of MY7 are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre
averaging 10 feet in height. Interim success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
vivo
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 1-2

end of MY3 and 260 planted stems per acre with an average stem height of 7 feet at the end of MY5. No
one species shall account for more than 50%of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot
at the end of MY7.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in October 2020. Vegetation monitoring resulted in an
average stem density of 544 planted stems per acre,which is well above the interim success criteria of
320 stems per acre required at MY3.There is an average of 13 stems per plot. All 9 vegetation plots
individually met the interim success criteria and are on track to meet the final success criteria required
for MY7. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment
table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Before construction,the Site had sporadic areas of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).There were also a few scattered
stems of princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Multiflora rose
was treated throughout the Site in May 2020 using a foliar application of triclopyr.The scattered
princess tree and tree of heaven individuals were treated in September 2020 using a stem injection of
imazapyr.The remaining Chinese privet on the site will be treated during the winter of 2020/2021 using
a combination of methods including foliar and cut stump applications. Herbicide application for
Japanese honeysuckle treatment is also scheduled for MY2. While invasive species have been greatly
reduced, Wildlands recognizes that multiple treatments are typically needed for effective invasive plant
control and will likely conduct follow up treatments in subsequent monitoring years as necessary.
Areas along the edge of the easement adjacent to the livestock pastures were dominated by pasture
grasses such as tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea).These areas received a broadcast application of
glyphosate and were seeded with the permanent native seed mix prior to planting. Wildlands completed
ring sprays around the base of trees in most of the remaining areas dominated by tall fescue.These ring
sprays were completed soon after tree planting and significantly reduced tall fescue cover in an 18"-30"
radius around each tree. A few small areas were left untreated by ring sprays for comparison.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in October 2020. Streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. All cross-sections at the Site show minimal change in the bankfull cross-
sectional area and width-to-depth ratio. Bank height ratios are 1.0 or less. Entrenchment ratios are over
1.4 for B channels and 2.2 for C channels. Cross-section graphs show slight deviations from as-built due
to sediment deposition and establishment of vegetation. Some sediment deposition in pools is natural
and expected. Reachwide substrate measurements indicate the maintenance of coarser materials in the
riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools. Visual inspection does not indicate reachwide vertical
instability so longitudinal profile surveys are not required. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability
assessment table, Integrated Current Condition Plan View map, and stream photographs. Refer to
Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
By the end of MY7, four or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the
restoration reaches. One bankfull event was recorded on Catfish Creek Reach 6 and one was recorded
on UT1 Reach 2. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 1-3

1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
As requested by NCDWR, four groundwater wells with pressure transducers were installed and
monitored within the existing wetlands zones (one along Catfish Creek Reach 4 and three along UT1
Reach 2).The purpose of these gauges is to assess potential effects to wetland hydrology from the
construction of the restored stream channels.The monitoring results are not tied to performance
standards. All gauges are downloaded and maintained quarterly.
The measured hydroperiod ranged from 5.3% (14 days)to 41.0% (109 days)of the growing season.
Groundwater gauges were not installed until mid-March after construction completion, resulting in a
data gap during the first 18 days of the growing season. Refer to Appendix 5 for wetland hydrology data.
1.2.7 Adaptive Management Plan
From construction completion through MY1, sporadic areas of invasive species were treated via various
forms of herbicide applications. Both the scattered Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle are
scheduled for herbicide treatment in MY2. Wildlands will continue to monitor and control invasive
species at the Site during subsequent monitoring years.
Trees planted in areas of competition with tall fescue are being observed closely. Based on current
conditions, no additional treatment is necessary at this time.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All vegetation plots met the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Sporadic invasive
vegetation was treated in May and September 2020 and follow up treatments are scheduled for winter
2020/2021. Project streams are stable and functioning as designed. Cross-sections show limited
deviations from as-built due to sediment deposition and vegetation establishment. A bankfull event was
documented on both Catfish Creek Reach 6 and UT1 Reach 2 during MY1.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019)
available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are
available from DMS upon request.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration:A Natural
Channel Design Handbook(Doll et al., 2003). Integrated Current Condition View mapping for MY1 was
recorded using a Garmin GLO receiver with 3-meter accuracy and processed using ArcGIS. Pressure
transducers were installed in riffle cross-sections to measure bankfull events and were monitored
throughout the year. Hydraulic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in
accordance with the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update,
released by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT, 2016).Vegetation monitoring
protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program.Accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/FINAL%
20RBRP%20Neuse%202010_%2020111207%2000 RRECTED.pdf
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy,John P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites:An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Accessed at:
https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/fplibrary/Harrelson_1994_Stream_Channel_Reference
_Sites_An_II lustrated.pdf
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth,T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-Iev1-2.pdf
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-Update.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology. Accessed at:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2019. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Nbor Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

'�_ /' J !
iuiii ii I t ( �1,.Project Location ! 1 03020101010050
`
_ , 03020101010020 I `i
03020201010010 - - ` 1
HI I._ _!County Boundary \^ I \ 4
— Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
I
�1 ^�—I 03020201010040
Targeted Local Watershed Ma / �� i
I
03020201010020 /.....J.5 / si e I
— —_—— - —•---•—.._.. PERSON 1 t i
_.._.._.._ .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.-DuRHAM-,/, /._.._.S ••_•• 0302020_..; 0
e•-•.�^ 1 1 f, cree°4 I
1 �- ./(i I:
l 03020201010030 -�
I
t, 1 V 1 k •--Ll i
I \�\ (` it
) .'1
03020201020010 i " ,. `� E: 1 '
I I
J I j
l �� '
‘ . • N
v 2...r\1 rs�\ 1 / )r�J i L�
1
1 _ 03020201010050 __.....i
_i) `'
(�, Park �••) I
.i\ ,.,11 •
/ . (.••.�.'. / i
03020201020020 1/4•" `/ I
1 �� /� '` i
.,.-I l --. 1 I
W ac(''''' j ( )
Z �� (I 03020201040020
'"-r' 03020201020040
,/ i., '^Q I, 03020201020030 `-- A .3- / i
l J �
pl e, l' ' $! ) ; '
es
—J )1 / ''' u, y•� i ce
11 w.• I 1• C9
/ ; 11 l
r i .?L'N I .. ••/ . I }, 1'.
'• 103020201050010
03020201030030 /, "�'+. ' `J j
03020201060030
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the 1 •, ` �/ �� ~l
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services(DMS) and is 1 Directions:
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but is From Raleigh, NC,take 1-40 West towards Durham.
bordered by land under private ownership.Accessing the site may % Take exit 279E for NC-147 N towards Durham/Downtown. °1
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and \ Travel approximately 8 miles and exit onto Duke Street.
therefore access by the general public is not permitted.Access by / Merge onto South Duke Street and continue 4.3 miles until '.N
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their j South Duke Street merges with US-501 N/N Roxboro Street.
designees/contractors involved in the development,oversight, i. Travel north on US-501 N/N Roxboro Street for 7.5 miles.
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms I-" Make a U-turn and travel south on N Roxboro Street for 0.2
and timeframes of their defined roles.Any intended site visitation or / miles,turn right on the first gravel road. Drive approximately
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles �.rt—, 0.2 miles and take the first right onto another gravel road.
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS. ..„/ ` The Site is located at the end of the gravel road.
. _j `:...-•• ``✓_
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
kiiiiIIIIV W I L D L A N D 5 0 1 2 Miles , Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING IIIII DMS Project No. 100039
N
Monitoring Year 1—2020
Durham County, NC

;: _ Project Location
1 Conservation Easement
, r(7i Internal Crossing
� > i ; � , �` �j/� Existing W:::
d3 � � r Y � � Y:•! "i^', • ` , 4' ,ia: pi ;i ' ,j Stream Retion
t r Stream Enhancement II
Sv 1Sx i ' r
°:` '' r �' . �'` "1 Non-Project/Not for Credit Stream
K _ Fence
i —yx — x 7 . 4 rp! .. `J ® Reach Break
x 4- t e-
x /
/+ + Ple
�V' !
+ \ k /
+` /e.
��
+— X/ OJ
R
�7 A `r. Reach M` s' ,'
Reach 31 , t , N. : , A Reach Q♦'' Al �Q
•
a . . �7
� OC- ♦ 13
II
„,r , +\ 7• 4Reach4k•+% —
.A.:.....„-,-- S, /rJ.° L�
r ,; > i0 - _+ ' ";3
�7 r` *^ I"�s. e', /, '± Reach S
49
-1'..4,* ,I? ..,, , :V -OF411
sr.,44,,,,,' _L.' ..." : ,,,,• A " .L '. ----,'•L t--,i, #
kip4 . .-.
2017Aerial PIApoaphy ` " � • "" r
Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map
014VV I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I I I IIt' DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1—2020
Durham County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
.1111kPROJECT COMPONENT
Mitigation Mitigation
Reach ID Existing plan Mitigation Restoration Priority Level Ratio As-Built Credits Comments
Footage Footage Category Level (X:1) Footage (SMU)
STREAMS
Catfish Creek Reach 1 .115 115 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 115 46.000 Invasive Control,Conservation Easement
Invasive Control,Grade Control Structures,
Catfish Creek Reach 2 323 323 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 323 129.200
Planted Buffer,Livestock Exclusion
Invasive Control,Grade Control Structures,
Catfish Creek Reach 3 474 473 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 474 189.200 Planted Buffer,Livestock Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,
369 374 Warm R P1 1.0 373 374.000
Catfish Creek Reach 4 Livestock Exclusion
Culvert Crossing
lir Grade Control Structures,Planted Buffer,
Catfish Creek Reach 5 459 460 Warm Ell N/A 2.5 460 184.000
Livestock Exclusion,Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,
Catfish Creek Reach 6 466 454* Warm R P1 1.0 444 454.000
Livestock Exclusion,Farm Pond Drained
Invasive Control,Grade Control Structures,
Catfish Creek Reach 7 1,087 1,071* Warm ElI N/A 2.5 1,087 428.400
Planted Buffer,Livestock Exclusion
111307 263 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 263 105.200 Invasive Control,Planted Buffer,Livestock
Exclusion
UT1 Reach 1 Culvert Crossing
Invasive Control,Planted Buffer,Livestock
717 717 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 711 286.800
Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,
UT1 Reach 2 430 515 Warm R P1 1.0 520 515.000 Livestock Exclusion
Culvert Crossing
UT1 Reach 3 154 149 Warm R P2 1.0 149 149.000 Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,
Livestock Exclusion
UT1 Reach 4 447 446 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 446 178.400 Invasive Control,Planted Buffer,Livestock
Exclusion
UT2 412 412 Warm Ell N/A 2.5 412 164.800 Invasive Control,Grade Control Structures,
Livestock Exclusion
Invasive Control,Grade Control Structures,
Mountain Tributary 0362 1,362 Warm ElI N/A 2.5 1,362 544.800
Planted Buffer,Livestock Exclusion
*Due to a stationing error in the Mitigation Plan,linear feet and associated credits were overestimated on Catfish Creek Reach 6 and underestimated on Reach 7 for a net overage of 10.6 SMUs.Stream credits were calculated using
Mitigation Plan footage because the 10.6 SMUs represent only 0.28%of the total stream credits.
PROJ
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Coastal
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine Wetland Marsh
Restoration 1,492.000
Enhancement
Enhancement II 2,256.800
Preservation
Re-Establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Creation
Total^ 3,748.800
*Credits have been adjusted to include changes in stream alignment on Catfish Creek Reach 6 due to bedrock in the floodplain.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Activity or Report Data Collection Com1.mpletion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan July 2019 July 2019
Final Design-Construction Plans August 2019 August 2019
Construction February-March 2020 March 2020
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal March 2020 March 2020
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' April 2020 April 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2020 March 2020
Stream Survey March-April 2020
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) June 2020
Vegetation Survey March 2020
Competitive Vegetation Treatment2 April-May 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment May&September 2020
Stream Survey October 2020
Year 1 Monitoring December 2020
Vegetation Survey October 2020
Stream Survey 2021
Year 2 Monitoring December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Stream Survey 2022
Year 3 Monitoring December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Year 4 Monitoring December 2023
Stream Survey 2024
Year 5 Monitoring December 2024
Vegetation Survey 2024
Year 6 Monitoring December 2025
Stream Survey
Year 7 Monitoring December 2026
Vegetation Survey
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
'Herbicide ring sprays around the base of planted stems.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 497 Bramson Ct,Suite 104
Daniel Johnson,PE Mt.Pleasant,SC 29464
843.277.6221
Main Stream Earthwork,Inc.
Construction Crew 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville,NC 27320
Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Planting Contractor P.O.Box 1197
Fremont,NC 27830
Canady's Landscaping&Erosion
Seeding Contractor 256 Fairview Acres Rd
Lexington,NC 27295
Seed Mix Sources Garrett Wildflower Seed Farm
1591 Cleveland Rd
Smithfield,NC 27577
Ernst Conservation Seeds,Inc.
8884 Mercer Pike
Meadville,PA 16335
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Bare Roots 825 Maude Etter Rd
McMinnville,TN 37110
Live Stakes Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Foggy Mountain Nursery
797 Helton Creek Rd
Lansing,NC 28643
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Monitoring,POC Jason Lorch
919.851.9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
County Durham County
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36°9'48.03"N,78°54'37.66"W
Project Area(acres) 20.73
Planted Acreage(acres of woody stems planted) 8.00
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Neuse River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03020201020040
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 227(Catfish Creek-197,Mountain Tributary-30)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.0%
CG IA Land Use Classification 45.6%forested,54.2%cultivated,0.2%wetland
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Catfish Creek
Parameters
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
Length of Reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 115 323 474 373 460 444 1,087
Valley Confinement(confined,moderately confined,unconfined) Confined Confined Confined Unconfined Moderately Moderately Moderately
Confined Confined Confined
Drainage Area(acres) 17 17 53 56 61 70 197
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral I P P P P P P
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 35.00 --- 30.00 45.25 --- --- ---
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-II/HQW/NSW
Morphological Description(stream type)-Pre-Restoration E5b/E4b E5b/E4b E4 Incised E6 1 C4b 1 N/A C4b
Morphological Description(stream type)-Post-Restoration E5b/E4b E5b/E4b E4 C4 C4b B4a C4b
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model)-Pre-Restoration IV IV IV IV IV N/A V
FEMA Classification None Zone AE
Parameters R3 R2 UT1 R3 R4 UT2 Mountain Tributary
Length of Reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 974 520 149 446 412 1,362
Valley Confinement(confined,moderately confined,unconfined) Unconfined Moderately Moderately Confined Confined Moderately Confined
Confined Confined
Drainage Area(acres) 75 105 107 108 32 30
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral P P P P I I
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 31.50 26.00 26.00
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-II/HQW/NSW
Morphological Description(stream type)-Pre-Restoration E4 1 C6 E4b E4b 1 C3b/C4b 1 E4b
Morphological Description(stream type)-Post-Restoration E4 C4 B4a E4b C3b/C4b E4b
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model)-Pre-Restoration IV V IV IV IV IV
FEMA Classification None
CONSIDERATIONS
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes Certification No.4134.
Division of Land Quality(Dam Safety) N/A N/A N/A
Catfish Pond Mitigation Plan;per the Categorical Exclusion research
and response by US Fish and Wildlife Service the"proposed action[in
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes this project]is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed
endangered or threatened species,their formally designated critical
habitat,or species currently proposed for listing under the Act."
Correspondence from SHPO on March 5,2018 stated they were
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes aware of"no historic resources which would be affected by the
project."
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management N/A N/A N/A
Act(CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Durham County Floodplain Development Permit No.19800041 was
obtained on October 7,2019.
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
(---): Data was not provided.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

III-
- '�.. .. -•i _ Project Location
' Figure 3a x - x - X - X . r ` - .---
i, f.
/ _ ' iConservation Easement
' I / '�'� "'� ,", .1 ///, Internal Crossing
i +I �+ \�\x 'x 'x ' , + /����� { ,. r •� Existing Wetland
`+ + �C� Fixed Vegetation Plot-MY1
•
�a ,
+:+
' •
T\ '` �� ' .1` 3 , i •
— Criteria Met
x / - Random Vegetation Plot-MY1
x
,_. :
*..I
, ( )Criteria Met
- ---- ..., ,):'•
` ��� '• �`, • � tN } L 1 '! ..JT2 % = �'4 - ' ,, erg Stream Restoration
f .� r ' # . +.. -f- Reach 3
_.- r1� :, _ +'. k\ .1. '� i Stream Enhancement II
� x
_ x
Y '` 4 �� Reach 1 k\+ ��x } Reach 5/ Q4 • Non-Project/Not for Credit Stream
r" •"C F4a p,,, ' 1� r •r- f x _ i Catfish Creek ix`�- f I f i. tt tt Fence
,C.., a f-' ,,..pia .1_+7,91j•"a =' • !` % ,- 0 Z•• g' k' x x k �Y • g i%
•
rrtyt 'i '..ryr� a�-•,�-�, "• , F f. , `� -' lit
• �.r, ;, k • F I Ot Cross-Section
•t0 RI
r' -cy�•�. a�" f y �+ � y`,• 'G-0�B "',�, --- --/ 0�---�---�--ram+- ---'--- -� OO Reach Break
` t . i •
.tikt���r��. r yI'v,,,,.
G__3 4 .-. 5 k + Reach 7 x I- Crest Gauge
•
.ct . _ -- _i r _ I I Groundwater Well Not for Credit
II
�': t q ;. , r 4 r -- _x \ I I Photo Point
-'"},• i .• , - - . -.--=ram- ---.---.---'--- ..•-r1 i,i. •'
Barotroll
)04.
* ," N., .} 1 : A. i, ?�4 '�r I _ 1 ',dC X_ - 1 - ' -0 _f __ ?
-. _ :.0 -' 40:, ,4, _ ,.,?i, _ ._ ;. i
t'' 4.7 viA t ".4.',• ,.1.2 fp•,0 / , ,,/-1- -i-22,42GA ,
3 44
� , � , • ` �• y
� Ar, +r. .,�Y 1r'i �� f� `
"i l.,�k "l + �4 I %' �.� � d�
1. ! J a •y
1,' y Ts: i ~ '� `'� � ` y . r / y ,r,• / - _-V f aY i. _ '�.• Gh?
ly',�[' .0"1 h w•4 , - • 1 1�.� i •I ., - % F n ,- ?!�.' . �.. ' f
�� ry'. t iy%•t4 • H �. 1 - t j. _ l is
' .:- ems • % I -- - �� '�I �1 -
2.
or" . . .... . _
if
)'` I - �` fib\ f4 �'
t:.
Figure 3b , . . - ;'. rI `r
•
2017 Aerial Photography4es ' I. ;r
AidillMillimidik. , -.'' k
Figure 3. Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map Key
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERI Nv G 0 400 800 Feet Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
I I I I I Monitoring Year 1—2020
Durham County, NC

14'
`tom ,..,V W;S .l 1i 4 ,. �i.. k: ',.. 1 - r Y/f •• 41f lik_ .�. !F� r+�1:, - r x le�F 71� \3�i:
- '"` �:4,,,:,.i
S .:• - Ai v -1-T.,. 1ill'. l, • _ T L'.1-.
�' rl�: �•
- :LT'.- fin -� •r a: ,;,, _ ' r Project Location
` a - #+ K <•+ ' Conservation Easement
n
•
7 ; f fi�� ► ►` �x t J+:•kIff• a Internal Crossing Ire
` � ' a x v sf R x.: ' ,J,r, _ - Existing Wetland
—di
: / t I gig / .
" .'. F 1� , (+ + . x -4` /+ 7, Fixed Vegetation Plot MY1
t, 3 f• ''� + �+ / • +PP 20 + j �.
y� 1 f ! =!44';• ♦ k +/��r,� ,¢ - Criteria Met
k l�
�w r PP 18 x — x —x — x —x —k`q od +/C,�J a Random Vegetation Plot MY1 '..ry +j 'e""), ,+?' � i ` a- + raS� : Criteria Met
� fr r1 + �,� . ,,� ` P K44r +�JC% —Stream Restoration I
�' + t ' ` '' Stream Enhancement II
- ;V,.--fl q ,-.. , r,�, ;, `� �. ' f` � . i, - Non-Project/Not for Credit Stream
� + 'f )y Jam`
k v. r E3 E3 Fence
'L x ro f e at ;}f' r ----•As-Built Bankfull J
h x fir . ' - i 4,• ,- jit Structure
'` ?'1'1 ... /, Cross Section (XS)
j
' T, 1 .. dye.. .. -. _ 41v' 4^r . fSI' - _ -. r '
',err #%' �, � „ Is e µ t - ® Reach Break
% .- ` k" Crest Gauge
♦+ 3 • y rew r,• s
♦ r " / +�� ` Groundwater Well (GW) Not for Credit
-1- a , � _ .r• Reach b . , • •
3a ' f, f r
\ `' t ��,/ H '�� 0 Photo Point(PP)
x - x — x. '-• K PP.3 bsyoD \-ra ►, Reach 5 '�, t
+/ ,. o PP�a i' x I y +.x,. _ { I, X X o.X rr, r' `� - _ s r , ..4 r 'e.
/ ..e, ,,_, .,., , -,;•. .. '
* , -..PP 1 tifi,—,_ 0 - ... - lio+oo,,i, -. • _
O • T4
\ R. Q Gqw' 1 4 x O •O"_� i±+ems+ tie r `r r
.1 `v fT -a r DPP 6 titi w
2
� `I x Catfish Creek - ;.3�
.`Reach fi = '_-=5r� + GIZEd313 ‘ 04+ =.r1''oo �x X O• `' ► ' �
A.
7r�
P •- N PP 7 + ai x
2 4 Y
^-�`' ='s _e __ "pro=��0—.._,- �3_ i'r "f `1 `y,�c` ♦` —
/ ► s 6 , + Reach 7 x
•
_ ' __ _ • ,
___ ___ -
•
: _4t______t_______H:pir5v„,., . ;
•
V.
tt O II 7}
•
2017Aerial Photography .� -" { x x x _ — ., •
Figure 3a. Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
0
VLF I L D L A N D S Catfish Pond Mitigation Site 14
ENGINEERING 0 200 400 Feet
DMS Project No. 100039
I I I I I N Monitoring Year 1—2020
Durham County, NC

p.
" yy P� 4
�v, \ 23 / :::41':;T:r.''
I 1£'Sq'r y� • PP,
7 00 f r
PP 16 ti
•
�� _ * s' ti Reachf]
W , + p
yI ,. - •
n— ram, i • s
? vl.
/ • •1 ,.r k
► , Reach 4 X C' PP 8, o — * -,
_ �,y_ PP 9
s — ► 1 C} ate . +'
g .. , .- - - ' "+.. . '9 :.e.Yd•r i„f' / 7 i' T/ x x x _r. , 1.:. ` - -.- ' 4
4 •,,A I. fi ...r. \\
-I ,. m 1'..�Je�j4--- - ._—� ^ s ' .,.4 . .r .w',.J4, �i.. - r '`y:, --
IYIY s
__ .
� ,..• 4 -„, i 4., ..,, +
i ,, -
. _. _,,
. , ......,
,„,,,
•
,y Y , s
"...,,u. :, t,...1.,_,:,..--''''; ,3527..- g3'. ..‘6'. ' +: I
11111‘14 1 .....4 .
ti "ft ,
+ ' !!! } d', / Reach 2 n ,
v
v / alliA _ Project Location
,_ ._ - x ° r / V 4 / I ' r �_ _ Conservation Easement
- " iti,'
' l PPeg ,4 /I � � i, Internal Crossing
�' �" ! , r =iT` y�ME,i , I %::.r. Ilp, 4 •
//L Existing Wetland
*. r ' ,:, , ;i __ ,. 1+ , ',a Fixed Vegetation Plot MY1
• t '�.* *. � i► ? ``^ z. F M iFrA ,— = Criteria Met
�' • k _, '' r►r. `¢ r7 �5 Random Vegetation Plot MY1
a r �; ;r � •
•
,_ Criteria Met
itrit
' ,'_' / a�` Stream Restoration
tift 4,
J `y4 .,`v rtir 4 A 'IN
4 ' i for r
411
-
..
i r ' ,/ G90 it,' (� f Stream Enhancement II
a �1 { .f i / *�' j /=Y d�{fie *.'i •
,
.414 t*iii, �' , ���, � / ' i Non Project/Not for Credit Stream
VI
t,,.• oi / °%: •`. �. �/ tt tt Fence
t
`' a _ 7 / " 492+op i l �� ���'
r 1 - ~ ———
�� ,[ :::*:'
•As-Built Bankfull
II
w ,.
'.: . . . .., .. ,, f I �f'II + s�# Structure
,.? .1 ,,4i if ,
e ''� p' •+',a1'14, + iir 1 Cross Section (XS)
... . ,
, :if.
;�: + c :;forv, `"' e '� " ® Reach Break
R .• -. •.. '�* - /. �� '? it •it r'. Tn
c ie ,ry l :4- . r• 'F Crest Gauge
9.4'►+� r F '� Groundwater Well (GW) Not for Credit
a �
by t
1,- 0 Photo Point(PP)
Barotroll --
2017 Aerial Photography
Figure 3b. Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
Okii/* W I L D L A N D S Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 ZOO 400 Feet
DMS Project No. 100039
I I I I IIt' Monitoring Year 1—2020
Durham County, NC

Table 5a.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Creek Reach 4
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
hannel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
ategory Performing as in As-Bulk Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aegradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 7 7 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 7 7 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 7 7 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 7 7 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 7 100%
meander bend(Glide)
2.Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,caving,or collapse. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 0 0 N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 0 0 N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 0 0 N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 4 4 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat -Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth_1.6 4 4 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Creek Reach 6
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
.ajor Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
hannel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
ategory Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aegradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 14 14 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 15 15 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 14 14 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 15 15 100%
meander bend(Glide)
2.Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 1 1 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 1 1 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 1 1 100%
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 0 0 N/A
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
-Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6
4.Habitat 0 0 N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5c.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 2
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric performing as in As-Buik Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aegradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 10 10 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 10 10 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 10 10 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 10 10 100%
meander bend(Glide)
2.Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 0 0 N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 0 0 N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 0 0 N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 2 2 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat "Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth_1.6 2 2 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5d.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DM5 Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 3
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as in As-Buik Unstable Unstable Performing as Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed Aegradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 3 3 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Condition Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 4 4 100%
4.Thalweg Position meander bend(Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 4 4 100%
meander bend(Glide)
2.Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3.Engineered
Structures' Structures physically intact with no
1.Overall Integrity 0 0 N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 0 0 N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a.Piping 0 0 N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 0 0 N/A
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
'"Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6
4.Habitat 0 0 N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Planted Acreage 8.00
Mapping of
Number of Combined
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Planted
(Ac) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
Bare Areas 0.1 0 0 0%
material.
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
Low Stem Density Areas 0.1 0 0 0%
based on MY3,4,or 5 stem count criteria.
Total 0 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth Areas with woody stems of a size class that are 0.25 Ac 0 0 0%
Rates or Vigor obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 20.73
Mapping %of
Number of Combined
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Easement
(SF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at
Invasive Areas of Concern 1,000 0 0 0%
map scale).
Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at
Easement Encroachment Areas none 0 0 0%
map scale).

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

gr'llIrr
# '�' 3V. hr. rK 41 �" - _ �'+' �.;-<
S x_ 1r Y ' , 1 „
4- Or e y-h Fe f
•
1.
'+f / a. �` A X i r� r a7 t.a.. • +.
It
"' - ,� ` K) / __ ' . ' -i , ,R r (_• "'"•, 4 ' `,� r �r yam,.
S _ 1 b_ + �__ . f ri. -
141E
"It
'; r r . 4 �: 1. -try: t.
PHOTO POINT 1 Catfish Creek Ri—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 1 Catfish Creek R1—downstream(10/22/2020)
r� n ' —
e
r +�
...- �. 3 a .y t " may.
`` ta7 • �'' Yry i- i E g4tr _� , -
k 1
\il
I.0. 4 r�
PHOTO POINT 2 Catfish Creek R2—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 2 Catfish Creek R2—downstream(10/22/2020)
, .4
.-'-. ,.."7::,,,, i.. , -lc,- 'IL-. ""!L..".1.Z.e,4,''',111r. . ' , .." ', '
- � � -7
d x.
R
PHOTO POINT 3 Catfish Creek R3—upstream (10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 3 Catfish Creek R3—downstream(10/22/2020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
lial Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•
•
•
.„
•
PHOTO POINT 4 Catfish Creek R4—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 4 Catfish Creek R4—downstream(10/22/2020J
,�-
71
•
•
a `w
}
f ;A ° w
r
a
n - _ _ ,
Q
•
a �� . � .
PHOTO POINT 5 Catfish Creek R5—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 5 Catfish Creek R5—downstream(10/22/2020)
• �,
�G It o+ +�- �, fit', ,� 3 s�'. d5sp�_ ""�-f�i i.
n I! ar • x f fi- 'r - B 'FR' ?'� �, A P£ � „> ` "^; � r,$�� f a� ` i if r`
: . .. '.:::•:.••:-:":"•'!:.•::: :•.;'20"!:.':"‘:•;-..iCI'7iir''''.;-:,3"1:7•4,";,;-;`.,..1:- :;1:04-*;:'":7:c4:;:-Ij --:"'''.:.:.1 ., .#.,..—..-.;:L''''''•I'4"::::'#.•.;1"'!";;;*•,1;:',.7411.;-':''' '"..L . .•:.:1-;-L'''.''M' :LL-.-::-.. . .:L'....•- 4.7:..'5.q-:/?..H;L''''
, . ., .....i.. .•:.. ,:, ....-„,.::?::-..:• • .. -...--1::"...A,L,..,..,..,,,11„,,,,.4..,,,....„.c.;71„,,,-, It.._,,..*:_;:t.,1-4-,..5.4z-Ji.4*..,,Iv:.*:;.,,,i..,..•. :
� �1, }� • -�»M ✓ " � „�+ 1j p � � �
-,� tea- { {.
•
_ Y:,fit
PHOTO POINT 6 Catfish Creek R6—upstream (10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 6 Catfish Creek R6—downstream(10/22/2020)
iiiii Catfish P M
Appendix 2:ond Visualitigation Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

yi sq� A'
i T
, fry,xe e - - .!3-*-a te Y.-
4.
•
7
,rt
� y' � d �
r,:� + z te-• }[ k1' 4r5 �ass ,
•
PHOTO POINT 7 Catfish Creek R7—upstream(1 0/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 7,Catfish Creek R7—downstream(10/22/2020)
v
A r
p y� }
�,a-� � S • ys :.tea,
f i-!� r ate � 3 P' $ :^£ "i$ - -
r.
= y T tr4 ' * s r s
1 � s *C."plc'.r 4'.110 '` { 11� - '�/ r '�'. 3�. {- Fes" ,Z >y^
� .• ..,... -. .
PHOTO POINT 8 Catfish Creek R7—upstream (10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 8 Catfish Creek R7—downstream(10/.22/2020)
4k fY F L R � Y tt :
S :7
S �4• d i' 4 J�'�h
f y Y k!y to p . ` k. 1 r
_ - r $ p�Y h -
;,-, -'/.,‘,..-p.,_,ti,„ok.'-•"•,,,,e,"..;•',‘,,,..71f.,;....,,.nA.--. -4 .,,, :-- ' t ' - -
•
` ►q wYw.w_ - . S.
PHOTO POINT 9 Catfish Creek R7—upstream (10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 9 Catfish Creek R7—downstream(10/22/2020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

s L
f:
1
44,...•,- . . , ....„.. ',-_,'.....-,:zk*4-
4 7 *fi fi r "'.• 4 N
fir' ° t k v -,'� : t-r=
''"'''' -.L4'!'7'.:, '-- ''' ' -- e''''''''-. 9:4".."**'''' '-"-. l'4V;414 '''''''''-':IA 175YA-','F'i ii''.1,:;.- ''. . ,'' -` --'''''4.'.:-1':".7.''N-''''''' .:-
-
t> _ y - +0 ' 5t.r704 aA. i_• 1s'e• i fit. ; A �, _
"tea
PHOTO POINT 10 UT
i Ri—upstream(10/22/2020J PHOTO POINT 10_UT1, Ri—downstream(10/22/2020)
. . - , - . .0 ..,
i • -,.., .-3 4_,...,,,,,
l � .d.'tv,,.,- ; a4-#° f 1 1.
i. G ; : ay1p' ' _ ti- i+ tea-
�' 'aSi nF � 4..s '.• 3 d ce.. �_..z V. - 4 }.
•
PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 Ri—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 Rl—downstream(10/22/2020J
..x ``. I, '.,rr -. ice d .�v = i
� Y • n
�.'� k • yq ; � ! wl
4D
�. 7�,A?,f • �w t }-$°` i,^€r' �. a
r. ' . y r a ` 4 I err . `I''
•
PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1—upstream(10/22/2020J PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1—downstream (10/22/2020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

••v ay �!•
s.„F
r •sue � f
b � .
f
r� „
•
PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2—downstream(10(:2/2020)
•
5.
�-
x
h
� � 1• 1.
1 ! ti
I ., -
PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 R2—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 R2—downstream(10/22/2020)
•
.
•
•
'.4,1, ` �'r - -
•
r
Wyk. •
• - .'y
•
-r� - �' 1 p. f
v.
PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 R3—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 R3—downstream (10/22/2020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
14/ Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

CI 7c s t 1
401474
I 1 ) .fir. fL1 R
'tii:. k ' �..�. y ,5 P
.-L. ," ''' . Y s '� j; '?'.• try
r
_ . _.
4
to• 1, ms ' � 's ,.1 � - a
` rr'd fY J 4 S d )F Y
PHOTO POINT 16 UT1 R4—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 16 UT1 R4—downstream(10/22/2020)
rii, '] 1,, .,-; . ; .4,".•:;, ,- , -- --.' ' = . '
F Fes"`
yYa�i
wr
a a ;
\ f ``ii <.. r * /. , fir.
?, 'Y
f a
`r S-.:
—
PHOTO POINT 17 UT2—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT2—downstream (10./22/2020)
t-
,.
hSy' .•i Y
- '`,•: ....•',Is. i .$� °*s�" ear
' i �e r+ a r ;R' a`,P;' .al .n e i r_s
PHOTO POINT 18 Mountain Trib—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 18 Mountain Trib—downstream(10/22/2020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
kai Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 Mountain Trib—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 19 Mountain Trib—downstream(10/22/2020)
j'• ES• 9" t
4
y
•
PHOTO POINT 20 Mountain Trib—upstream(10/22/2020) PHOTO POINT 20 Mountain Trib—downstream(10/22/2020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
1.1 Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

44 ys
1111111111
kr� �' -
'"ask ' x .- j• '4 s. k, s 4 �'' 1�* .� ' ig �`k'
a. 5 c�j ar ti r' r z1 s, .v '�- r� i .d'i `✓ �> 't '�1 3Y-• i .'
t` - J��> y� '1 .� s44 -, r r ' ,G,,.�.� 'r 4.4.• k" ,r r a di " p
F N`� ,'�. r,3' � � .. x, i9v> �.:� 3 .,. Win- .' 4 : ''� ' r " i.>`
i,,,,
�,,``�. �t a�'.�'',. :� �,;;- e'�.ei�' j Is'"x' �. 'T"0. l� ` 9 f'4'� - ,t �z.�'� �� £.ry+..`ti d - T 3 4.
..It,
r C {.. r«'c' lY4 8, 'a,r r ice . " ,,.. F ;l L 3 � ° `tr. • � ,� I-, ,f'.
t," .., ,, HI :, .K, 1 1 I.. ti
y 1
:::
FIXED VEG PLOT 1(10/06/2020J FIXED VEG77::PLOT 2(10/06/2020J
, , zg ,�e ,tom�" a -7. u s
fi z ,.*, at P r �:*"' °Y
• [{, - t F ,.
t7- L R4 a{� '`? ; A SyA r A�l L hl1 .
r� ' -� Y 1 — �4' ` V P • •1
�- a ;�, k daE,4Y>:- sv � k df k - _ t� , q � � rb
y� i �°' g�
•
J - 4 ..- .0 `is �. )r
FIXED VEG PLOT 3(10/06/2020) FIXED VEG PLOT 4(10/06/2020J
illrillTrllpIIF'. . . ' - .. ' '".
•
:k.''11,--?...iitit,it-_:.;'";ei,, ,4,,t„,,:,:, '•,-0..;,1..;: •,,i '''''i''.•,$'''' '...'lc:. ''''' ,•:• -.'!'31' •
FIXED VEG PLOT 5(10/06/2020) FIXED VEG PLOT 6(10/06/2020J
lit Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

di M A a ii f' •P --
'j `, X `
:"... Pi.7.4.:(.,,,,-*:;‘,..,,,,,:,.:. ,,,.,„•,.,,g ,
FIXED VEG PLOT 7(10/06/2020)
V . . _
•
i • '•
s •
RANDOM VEG PLOT 8(10/06/2020) RANDOM VEG PLOT 9(10/06/2020J
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Nil Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Plot Success Criteria Met* Tract Mean
Fixed Veg Plot 1 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 2 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 3 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 4 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 5 Yes 100%
Fixed Veg Plot 6 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 7 Yes
Random Veg Plot 8 Yes
Random Veg Plot 9 Yes
*Based on the interim target stem density for MY3 of 320 planted stems per acre.

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables-Metadata
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Report Prepared By Tasha King
Date Prepared 10/30/2020 9:37
Database Name CatfishPond_MY1_cvs-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location F:\Monitoring\Catfish Pond\MY1-2020
Computer Name CHARLOTTEINTERN
File Size 84144128
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata Description of database file,the report worksheets,and a summary of project(s)and project data.
Project Planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre,for each year. This includes live stakes,all planted stems,and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data(live stems,dead stems,missing,etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species(planted and natural volunteers combined)for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 100039
Project Name Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Description Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
Sampled Plots 7

Table 9a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Current Plot Data(MY1 2020)
VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Aesculus flava Yellow Buckeye Shrub Tree 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 1 3 3 3
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4 4 4 7 7 7 3 3 3 8 8 8 2 2 2
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercusshumardii Shumard Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Unknown Species Tree
Stem count 14 14 14 15 15 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 6 5 5 5
Stems per ACRE 567 567 567 607 607 607 486 486 486 486 486 486 526 526 526
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 9a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Current Plot Data(MY1 2020) Annual Means
VP 6 VP 7 MY1(2020) MVO(2020)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Aesculus flava Yellow Buckeye Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 8 7 7 7
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 2 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6 36 36 36 36 36 36
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 11 11 11 11 11 11
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 3 3 3 15 15 15 15 15 15
Quercusshumardii Shumard Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 11
Unknown Species Tree 1 1 1
Stem count 14 14 14 16 16 16 96 96 96 97 97 97
size(ares) 1 1 7 7
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.17
Species count 5 5 5 5 5 7 9 9 11 10 10 10
Stems per ACRE 567 567 567 647 647 647 555 555 555 561 561 561
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 9b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Current Plot Data(MY1 2020) Annual Means
VP 8 VP 9 MY1(2020) MYO(2020)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total
Aesculus flava Yellow Buckeye Shrub Tree 3 3
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 3 3 3 3 6 6 1 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweetgum Tree 3 3 3 3
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 5 5 2 2 7 7 7 7
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 1 1 5 5 6 6 2 2
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 4 4
Quescus shumardii Shumard Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 3 3 3 3
Ulmus Elm Tree 1 1 1 1
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Viburnum Shrub Tree 1 1
Stem count 16 12 16 13 32 25 26 26
size(ares) 1 1 2 2
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05
Species count 8 8 7 7 10 10 10 10
Stems per ACRE 647 486 647 526 647 506 526 526
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Te-Number of stems including exotic species
Total-Number of stems excluding exotic species

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Creek Reach 4&UT1 Reach 2
IMRE-RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN •5-BUILT/BASELINE
Catfish Creek UT1 UT4 UT to Varnals Catfish Creek UT1 Catfish Creek UT1
Parameter Gage UT to Wells Creek
Reach 4 Reach 2 (UT to Cedar Creek) Creek Reach 4 Reach 2 Reach 4 Reach 2
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.0 16.7 7.3 6.2 8.6 9.3 10.5 8.5 11.5 8.1 10.0
Floodprone Width(ft)' 12.0 22.0 20.1 16.0 22.0 60.0 100.0 19.0 25.0 I 58.0 200.0 200.0
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.7 0.9 I 1.2 1.0 I 1.3 1.2 1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) N/A 6.4 7.1 4.2 3.9 6.3 10.3 12.3 5.8 9.9 6.4 8.0
Width/Depth Ratio 7.7 39.5 12.6 6.1 12.6 8.1 9.3 12.6 13.4 10.2 12.4
Entrenchment Ratio' 1.7 1.3 2.7 1.9 4.1 5.7 10.0 >2.2 2.2 I 5.0 24.6 20.1
Bank Height Ratio 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 28.5 37.5
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) -- --- 0.006 I 0.049 0.017 I 0.078 0.024 I 0.057 0.016 I 0.026 0.007 I 0.012 0.011 I 0.042 0.004 I 0.027
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A 1.4 -- 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.6 1.9 1 2.2 2.1 2.8
Pool Spacing(ft) -- --- 17.6 24.1 17.0 63.0 7.8 82.0 48.0 I 61.0 36.0 64.0 35.0 78.0 30.0 71.0
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) -- --- 3.2 5.7 10.0 35.0 15.0 45.0 21.0 38.0 33.0 48.0 21.0 38.0 33.0 48.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) -- --- 5.3 12.6 2.3 32.0 8.3 47.3 21.0 35.0 18.0 26.0 21.0 35.0 18.0 26.0
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A -- --- 0.7 1.7 0.3 4.0 0.6 3.2 2.5 4.1 1.6 2.3 2.5 4.1 1.6 2.3
Meander Length(ft) -- --- 10.2 17.0 -- --- 109.0 120.0 93.0 125.0 109.0 120.0 93.0 125.0
Meander Width Ratio -- --- 0.4 0.8 1.3 I 4.4 1.0 I 3.0 2.5 4.5 2.9 4.2 2.5 4.5 2.9 4.2
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B 00./Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d 100 ___ 0.1/0.6/4.5/53/ 2.9/9.2/15.0/56.0/ SC/6.69/16.0/ SC/SC/0.5/
--- --- --- ---
N/A 96/x 88.0 60.9/107.3/>2048 56.9/107.3/256
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz 0.56 0.26 --- --- --- --- --- 0.65 0.13
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.09 I 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.41 0.09 I 0.16 0.09 I 0.16
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0.0% --- --- --- 0.0% 0.0%
Rosgen Classification E6 C6 C4 C4 C4/E4 C4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 2.8 3.0 5.2 6.1 3.8 4.4 I 5.2 3.0 2.1 3.2 1.1
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 18.0 21.0 21.7 25.8 15.0 54.0 17.0 20.6 20.6 9.6
Q-NFF regression N/A
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Ma nnings
Valley Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 369(65 crossing) 430(60 crossing) --- --- --- 374(72 crossing) 515(60 crossing) 373(72 crossing) 520(61 crossing)
Sinuosity 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.41 1.20 1.18 1.23 1.18 1.23
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.016 0.020 0.016 0.020 0.020 0.014 0.005 0.014 0.005
1 Differences between Design and As-Built/Baseline calculations are due to the ranges wed in Design and field surveyed measurements used in As-Built/Baseline.
(-I:Data was not provided.

Table 1013.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Reach 6&UT1 Reach 3
PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASE
Catfish Creek Ufl Catfish Creek UT1 Catfish Creek UT1
Parameter Gage Reach 6 Reach 3 OF to Henry Fork Agony Acres Reach 6 Reach 3 Reach 6 Reach 3
(Reach 4 XS)
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) N/A' 6.2 I 8.1 3.2 7.7 11.1 8.5 8.0 7.7 9.0 6.5
Floodprone Width(ft)2 N/A' 22.0 6.3 13.3 25.2 12.0 I 21.0 11.0 I 20.0 30.0 100.0 60.0
Bankfull Mean Depth N/A' 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth N/A' 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.9 I 1.1 0.9 I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ftc) N/A N/A' 4.2 6.2 1.3 3.6 7.4 5.3 4.9 5.7 7.0 5.4
Width/Depth Ratio N/A' 9.2 10.5 5.2 16.4 16.6 13.8 13.0 10.2 11.6 7.8
Entrenchment Ratio N/A' 2.8 3.6 1.7 2.0 2.3 1.4 I 2.5 1.4 I 2.5 3.3 13.1 9.3
Bank Height Ratio N/A' 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) N/A' --- 34.0 50.6 --- --- 34.4 I 40.6 34.1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) N/A' -- 0.050 I 0.070 -- 0.031 I 0.045 0.049 10.055 0.005 I 0.059 0.040 I 0.093
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) N/A N/A' -- --- 1.6 2.3 3.0 1.5 2.4 1.8 2.6
Pool Spacing(ft) N/A' -- 14.1 I 24.9 - 13.0 I 51.0 11.0 I 28.0 7.9 142.1 19.0 32.0
Pool Volume(ft) """"
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A' -- N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A' -- N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A N/A' -- N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
Meander Length(ft) N/A' -- N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
Meander Width Ratio N/A' -- N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A' N/A'
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 2.0/12.9/50.6/ 16.56/32.92/50.6/ SC/7.10/23.2/
N/A 168.1/>2048.1 2580.3/3545.2/>2048 71.7/120.7/>2048
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftc 1.52 1.89 --- --- --- --- 1.86 1.89
Mao part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)Wm'
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.11 I 0.16 0.05 0.15 0.11 I 0.16 0.11 I 0.16
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0.0% --- --- 0.0% 0.0%
Rosgen Classification --- E4b B4a B3 B4a B4a B4a B4a
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- 5.1 3.8 I 5.4 4.9 4.0 4.4 4.9 3.5
Bankfull Discharge(cFs) -- 21.0 12.0 37.0 20.9 21.8 28.4 20.1
Q-NFF regression N/A 101111111111111111111111
®®®®
Q-USGS extrapolation
. M
Valley Length(ft) --- --- ---
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 466 154 --- --- 454 149 444 149
Sinuosity --- 1.10 1.10 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.05 1.02
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- 0.038 0.042 0.050 0.043 0.054 0.043 0.061
'Catfish creek Reach 6 was an embankment pond and thus had no existing channel characterirtics.
'Differences between Design and As-Built/Baseline calculations are due to the anges used in Design and field surveyed measurements used in As-Built/Baseline.
'Pattern data is not applicable for&type channels.
(-I:Data was not provided.
N/A:Not Applicable

Table 11. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
=Pr I
Cross-Section 1(Pool) Cross-Section 2(Riffle) Cross-Section 3(Riffle) Cross-Section 4(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 467.55 N/A 466.93 467.08 444.72 444.80 432.39 432.41
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area N/A N/A 1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 465.36 465.65 465.71 465.90 443.45 443.53 431.20 431.24
LTOB2 Elevation 467.55 467.56 466.93 466.95 444.72 444.70 432.39 432.40
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2
LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 14.4 12.3 6.4 5.3 5.7 4.9 7.0 6.9
Cross-Section 5(Pool) Cross-Section 6(Riffle) Cross-Section 7(Riffle)
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulli Area 446.13 N/A 445.98 446.05 442.36 442.40
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 443.44 443.52 444.52 444.73 440.83 440.87
LTOB2 Elevation 446.13 446.19 445.98 446.01 442.36 442.34
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 2.7 2.7 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5
LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 20.1 19.5 8.0 7.5 5.4 5.0
'Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-buih bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
zl.TOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)
will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.

Table 12a.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Creek Reach 4
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.1 7.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 200 200
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 6.4 5.3
Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 11.7
Entrenchment Ratio 24.6 25.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 <1.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0110 0.0420
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.9 2.2
Pool Spacing(ft) 35.0 78.0
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 21 38
Radius of Curvature(ft) 21 35
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 2.5 4.1
Meander Wave Length(ft) 109.0 120.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.5 4.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 373(72 crossing)
Sinuosity(ft) 1.18
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.014
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/6.69/16.0/ 0.08/1.41/11.4/
60.9/107.3/>2048 54.7/107.3/256
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0%
*Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6.

Table 12b.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Creek Reach 6
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.7 9.0 7.2 9.4
Floodprone Width(ft) 30 100 30 100
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.7 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1.3 1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 5.7 7.0 4.9 6.9
Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 11.6 10.7 12.8
Entrenchment Ratio 3.3 13.1 3.2 13.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 <1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.005 0.059
Pool Length(ft) _
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.5 2.4
Pool Spacing(ft) 8 142
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A1
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A1
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A1
Meander Wave Length(ft) N/A1
Meander Width Ratio N/A1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B4a
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 444
Sinuosity(ft) 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.043
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/B e%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 16.56/32.92/50.6/ 9.38/27.57/51.2/
25 80.3/3 54 5.2/>20 48 113.8/20 7.2/3 6 2
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0%
1 Pattern data is not applicable for B-type channels.
*Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6.
N/A:Not Applicable

Table 12c.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 2
ffameter As-Built/Baseline MYli MY2
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 10.0 10.1
Floodprone Width(ft) 200 200
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth 1.5 1.3
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 8.0 7.5
Width/Depth Ratio 12.4 13.5
Entrenchment Ratio 20.1 19.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.004 I 0.027
Pool Length(ft)IR
Pool Max Depth(ft) 2.1 2.8
Pool Spacing(ft) 30.0 71.0
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 33.0 48.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) 18.0 26.0
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.6 2.3
Meander Wave Length(ft) 93.0 125.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.9 4.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 520(61 crossing)
Sinuosity(ft) 1.23
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.005
Ri//Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/SC/0.5/56.9/ SC/0.27/16/95.4/
107.3/256 190.9/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0%
*Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6.

Table 12d.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 3
1:111111111
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.5 6.0
Floodprone Width(ft) 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth 1.5 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 5.4 5.0
Width/Depth Ratio 7.8 7.1
Entrenchment Ratio 9.3 10.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.040 0.093
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.8 2.6
Pool Spacing(ft) 19.0 32.0
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A1
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A1
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A1
Meander Wave Length(ft) N/A1
Meander Width Ratio N/A1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B4a
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 149
Sinuosity(ft) 1.02
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.061
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/7.10/23.2/71.7/ SC/16/47.7/227.6/
120.7/>2048 3197.8/>2048
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 0%
1 Pattern data is not applicable for B-type channels.
*Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6.
N/A:Not Applicable

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 1-Catfish Creek Reach 4
109+98 Pool
469
o
467
465
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
—MY0(4/2020) —*—MY1(10/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions `
12.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) "
10.9 width(ft) J
1.1 mean depth(ft)
1.9 max depth(ft) •• • _
11.8 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft)
9.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020 •-
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 2-Catfish Creek Reach 4
110+30 Riffle
469 -
•
o
467
v
w
465
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(4/2020) MY1(10/2020) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3 x-section area(ft.sq.)
7.9 width(ft)
0.7 mean depth(ft)
1.0 max depth(ft)
8.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft)
•
11.7 width-depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area(ft)
25.4 entrenchment ratio .. '
<1.0 low bank height ratio •
Survey Date: 10/2020
•
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ' `..-
•
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 3-Catfish Creek Reach 6
118+79 Riffle
446
0
444 1! !== ..- 4."411.1\teetillieW*4'"....." 11°3"."."4"....""."——
v
w
442
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(4/2020) MY1(10/2020) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions "A _
4.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) �.
7.2 width(ft) '
0.7 mean depth(ft)
1.2 max depth(ft)
7.8 wetted perimeter(ft) m,
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft) •.-
•
10.7 width-depth ratio ,,,` s.." - _
100.0 W flood prone area(ft) : .
13.8 entrenchment ratio e,; r, ,'i v ` ` . , 4.
1.0 low bank height ratio �, ', 0„. Ste; - `! r
Survey Date: 10/2020 F -• ,.x r I
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering _�' ' pT,..i: ': _;
ti y ?.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 4-Catfish Creek Reach 6
121+68 Riffle
434
432
v
w
430
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(4/2020) MY1(10/2020) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions ,
6.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
ti
9.4 width(ft)
0.7 mean depth(ft)
1.2 max depth(ft)
9.9 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft)
12.8 width-depth ratio "
• , :
30.0 W flood prone area(ft)
3.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio /, '1.?;••N.- �.,.: . .
Survey Date: 10/2020 ? _ • i� •
{
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering F •{ - ,•,••4.
•
a
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 5-UT1 Reach 2
214+06 Pool
447 -
r
$ �-s
445
v
w
443
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
—MY0(4/2020) —*—MY1(10/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions .y
19.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) ' r ••. r
12.9 width(ft) -
1.5 mean depth(ft) ;,
2.7 max depth(ft)
•
14.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
s +p.
1.4 hydraulic radius(ft)
8.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020 - l°f •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 6-UT1 Reach 2
214+38 Riffle
447
L
� J
0
445
v
w
443
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(4/2020) MY1(10/2020) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions : •• Y•""'ti } ti Y •
7.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) •A.."^•..4 "per q 4,41 :.;h•.
10.1 width(ft)
0.7 mean depth(ft)
1.3 max depth(ft) __ • - _
10.5 wetted perimeter(ft) •
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft) f oniig
13.5 width-depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area(ft) x. ° z
19.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
•
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering -
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 7-UT1 Reach 3
216+90 Riffle
444
442
v
w
\\\F-
440 7
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(4/2020) MY1(10/2020) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
6.0 width(ft)
0.8 mean depth(ft)
Ts.
1.5 max depth(ft)
7.4 wetted perimeter(ft) -
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft)
7.1 width-depth ratio
60.0 W flood prone area(ft)
10.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio z , -
y.y _
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ,`.; - =,
' •
,-;
View Downstream

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish R4,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class ® Class Percent Catfish R4,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 9 11 11 11 100 _
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 12 12 23 90 Silt/Clay >k Sand� _ l �G�ravel �I�I
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 Cobble 1< Boulder I
in 3 26 80 _ III 1 Bedrock� Medium 0.25 0.50 1 4 5 5 31
Coarse 0.5 1.0 -_ 31 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 © 8 8 39 i 60
ill Very Fine 2.0 2.8 -_ 39 m 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 in 1 1 40 g 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 �M 40 u • •
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 © 7 7 47 u 30
40. Medium 8.0 11.0 -© 2 2 49 w 20 ~
a
Ce Medium 11.0 16.0 4 6 10 10 59 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 © 5 5 64 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 in 7 7 71 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 M 8 8 79 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 9 M 9 9 88
MVO-03/2020 MV1-10/2020
Small 64 90 5 M 5 5 93
��� Small 90 128 3 0 4 4 97
L0 Large 128 180 2 M 2 2 99
Large 180 256 in 1 1 100 Catfish R4,Reachwide
Small 256 362 -_-- 100 Individual Class Percent
. Small 362 512 -_ 100 100
90
Ills"" Medium 512 1024 M 100
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -_ 100 c 70
u
Total 50 50 100 100 100 `w 60
a
r4 50
Reachwide 10
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
30
Di6= 0.08 v'
D35= 1.41 v 20
- 10 1 L
D50= 11.4 e _ e ■ r i I
D84= 54.7 0
D95= 107.3 p(al' yti5 plh ph 'y 'l. 1, A yC9 % y1 yio�,LC' "51' k5 Co''' .p yti� y9:, 1yb �yti yyti p,Lb pa0 p0
p' O' y ti b
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
■MVO-03/2020 MY1-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish R6,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI Total
Percent Catfish R6,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 © 3 3 3 100 < 1 >k I I I N I I — /
Very fine 0.062 0.125 —_ 3 90 Silt/Clay Sand }< Gravel 14 /-I V /
Fine 0.125 0.250 —_-- 3 Cobble you der IIIE1—��
/Bedrock_
� 80 Medium 0.25 0.50 1 in 2 2 5 • • •
Coarse 0.5 1.0 —© 2 2 7 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 © 4 4 11 i 60
ill Very Fine 2.0 2.8 —_ 11 m 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 —_ 11 u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 ME 1 1 12
Fine 5.6 8.0 —© 2 2 14 u 30
40' Medium 8.0 11.0 1 © 4 4 18 41 20
GPP Medium 11.0 16.0 3 in 4 4 22 10 -L----.—_
Coarse 16.0 22.6 8 9 9 31 0 - 11 . - 174-4-11/
I i i 1 1 i I IIiid
Coarse 22.6 32 5 © 7 7 38 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 4 ME 5 5 43 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 15 4 19 19 62
MVO-03/2020 MV1-10/2020
Small 64 90 11 © 16 16 78
��� Small 90 128 8 0 9 9 87
L0 Large 128 180 6 M 6 6 93
Large 180 256 3 © 5 5 98 Catfish R6,Reachwide
Small 256 362 2 M 2 2 100 Individual Class Percent
. Small 362 512 —_ 100 100
90
Ills"" Medium 512 1024 M 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 —_ 100 c 70
u
Total 70 30 100 100 100 `w 60
o-
r4 50
Reachwide 10
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
30
Di6= 9.38 v'
D35= 27.57 v 20
D50= 51.2 10
D84= 113.8 0 • • •
D95= 207.2 p'(01' yti5 plh ph 'y 'l. 1, A 49 'b y1 yio�,LC' "51' k5 Co''' .p yti� yc6p ,yb �yti yyti p,Lb pa0 p0
p O' y ti b
D100= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
■MVO-03/2020 MY1-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI Total
Percent UT1 R2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 28 32 32 32 100 < 1 1 1 K I I I •• •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 —_ 32 90 Silt/Clay Sand l< Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 —© Cobble 2 2 34 80 I I I Sou der g� edro
� Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 8 42
Coarse 0.5 1.0 —ME 1 1 43 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 —_ 43 i 60
ill --
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 —_ 43 50 • • •
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 —_ 43 E 40 —•—•--r
Fine 4.0 5.6 M 43
Fine 5.6 8.0 in 1 1 44 u 30
40. Medium 8.0 11.0 1 © 3 3 47 a 20
GQ'' Medium 11.0 16.0 —a 3 3 50 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 M 5 5 55 0
Coarse 22.6 32 3 © 8 8 63 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 3 M 3 3 66 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 6 M 6 6 72
MVO-03/2020 MV1-10/2020
Small 64 90 11 M 11 11 83
��� Small 90 128 6 M 6 6 89
LO' Large 128 180 5 M 5 5 94
Large 180 256 6 M 6 6 100 UT1 R2,Reachwide
Small 256 362 —_-- 100 Individual Class Percent
.1 Small 362 512 —_ 100 100
90
Ills"" Medium 512 1024 M 100
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 —_ 100 c 70
u
Total 50 50 100 100 100 `w 60
a
r4 50
Reachwide 10
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
0,6= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 0.27 -a 20 I
D50= 16.0 - 10
D84= 95.4 0
09,= 190.9 pcoti yti5 O.lh ph 'y 'l. 1, A yC9 % y1 ,io�,LC' "51' DO Co''' 0 yti� y9:, ,yb �yti yyti O,Lb Oa0 p00
O' O' y ti b
D100= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
■MVO-03/2020 MY1-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R3,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class ® Class Percent UT1 R3,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 18 21 21 21 100 < 1 1 1 I I I III y $ $ -7r
Very fine 0.062 0.125 —_ 21 90 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 M 1 1 22 80 Cobble �Qr'41er Bedrock_
0 Medium 0.25 0.50 1 4 5 5 27
Coarse 0.5 1.0 —ME 1 1 28 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 —_ 28 i 60
ill Very Fine 2.0 2.8 —_ 28 m 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 —_ 28 u 40
"Fine 4.0 5.6 M 28
Fine 5.6 8.0 in 1 1 29 u 30
40. Medium 8.0 11.0 2 M 2 2 31 a 20
GPP Medium 11.0 16.0 1 © 4 4 35 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 ME 3 3 38 0
Coarse 22.6 32 5 © 7 7 45 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 3 ME 4 4 49 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 4 © 6 6 55
MVO-03/2020 MV1-10/2020
Small 64 90 11 © 13 13 68
��� Small 90 128 6 © 9 9 77
LO Large 128 180 3 © 5 5 82
Large 180 256 3 M 3 3 85 UT1 R3,Reachwide
Small 256 362 1 M 1 1 86 Individual Class Percent
. Small 362 512 —_ 86 100
90
"" Medium 512 1024 M 86
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiii Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 86 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 4 10 14 14 100 c 70
w
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
50
Reachwide 10
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 16.00 'a20
D50= 47.7 10 _
D8,= 227.6 0 • - - � ' •
D9,= 3197.8 p(ati yti5 p.1h pg ti ti ,LW A 49 % tit ti��,LC' ,5'1, k5 �b -p yti� yc6p ,yb �yti ytiti p,Lb pb0 p0
p' O' ti ti b
D1oo= >2048
Particle Class Size(mm)
■MVO-03/2020 MY1-10/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Summary of Recorded Bankfull Events for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Date of Occurrence
Reach MY1(2020) MY2(2021) MY3(2022) MY4(2023) MY5(2024) MY6(2025) MY7(2026) Method
Catfish Creek 10/11/2020
Reach 6 Pressure
UT1 12/14/2020 Transducer
Reach 2
Monthly Rainfall Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Pond 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Durham,NC 2020
s
7
6
5
4
hil •
A 3gel• ■ ■ ' ` ■ 41
2
1 • • • • • • • • • • •
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
2020 Rainfall -30%Rainfall Total -70%Rainfall Total
12020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 10.7 NNE.
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Roxboro 7 ESE,NC(USDA,2020).

30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Catfish Pond 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Durham,NC 2020
12 6
10 - S
�. 8 — L� 4
To
rm
V
6 r 1 // ��
f0 l/ J jr)
I 3
.) v c_
E=
J
ro
0 4 2
0
M
2 1
11_—
1 . I. I ,_ _. l L I ,. Lii . . �u_ ., , i, . I. II
0 b 1 r 0
ro ro
c o ac i vi u Q Q z
.
Daily Rainfall —30-Day Cumulative Total —30%Rainfall Total —70%Rainfall Total
12020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 10.7 NNE.
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Roxboro 7 ESE,NC(USDA,2020).

Table 14. Wetland Gauge Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
mmary of Groundwater Gauge Results for Monitoring Years 1 throu
Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge MY1 (2020) MY2 (2021) MY3 (2022) MY4(2023) MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026)
1 14 Days
(5.3%)
2 100 Days
(37.6%)
3 109 Days
(41.0%)
4 59 Days
(22.2%)
*Data collected for informational purposes only, no success criteria is associated with the wetland areas.

Groundwater Gauge Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
c c
0 0
v Catfish Pond Groundwater Gauge#1 v
o Monitoring Year 1 2020 o
0
20 - 3NN 3 :4 6.0
o 14 max consecutive days P N
(7 M a-9 (> -1-1
.4_ .F —110 - o 0
fro c - 5.0
w
tfl
0 ,\k\\\\I, lit
4.0
? -10 _ _ _ _ — — — —
c
Ti,
3.0 w
c
11,
'm
m
-30
- 2.0
-40 VVil
_ .. .
- 1.0
-50
il
-60 I 1 I. I 1 1. A. il , 1 1 •11 . . y 1a lilt IJ. Iill �I{I 1 I I 0.0
-�i U- Q cii
—, —' Q l%1 0 z
cu
Rainfall Gauge#1 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gauge Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
c c
Ln Catfish Pond Groundwater Gauge#2 Ln
to Monitoring Year 1-2020 in 0
C 013 c O
20 3 � 3 � 6.0
O - 100 max consecutive days O N
V` • • Lo -1
w M w c-1
10 - O O
m c - 5.0
Y W
Ul
0
4.0
? -10 \\voib*IPPIV14" -
c
-20 3.0 w
c
t m
cc
3 -30
I - 2.0
-40
- 1.0
-50
-60 I .r I �. I I I. a. ill1 I l .0 L. . . y J I I I.I_ .1 1 I.I J 1 JI{I 1 I I 0.0
C . i T C 00 Q +-' > V
-�i U- Q —,cu
—' Q l%1 0 z
cu
Rainfall Gauge#2 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gauge Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
c c
0 0
Lo
Catfish Pond Groundwater Gauge#3cv
v v
tfl o Monitoring Year 1-2020 MI o
c N c N
20 -
m •109 •max consecutive days . \ 6.0
w
10 - 0 0
tco=
tfl
Y n�� "' 5.0
\k4*Il\l' .1441\.
- 4.0
s -10 -
Ti, _.
-20 - 3.0 w
c
., co cc
-30 -
I - 2.0
-40
- 1.0
-50
-60 I �. I I 1. J. i ill1 iiIll .1_ L . . y J I I D. al 1 1.I J J iI 1 11 0.0
-�i U- Q cu
cu
—, —' Q l%1 0 z
Rainfall Gauge#3 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gauge Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 1-2020
c c
o 0
Ln
Ln
Catfish Pond Groundwater Gauge#4 cv
v v
111 CIDo Monitoring Year 1-2020 CID o
c N O N
20 - .- 0 o N 6.0
o - 59 max consecutive days
C7 • • (..ow M .- .-i
10 - 0 0
c - 5.0
Y W `
0 `
l - 4.0
-10 4\6111*\\\AVI4t1 I.\:41111 k
Ti, 111
-20 -kt/I\ 3.0
c
w (11 'm
.,
3 -30
- 2.0
40
- 1.0
50 I
-60 I .r I 1. I I1. a. 0111 .0L. . . 11 J I I I.I_ .1 i I.I J 1 JI{I 1 11 0.0
C 0 iro
T C 00 Q +-' > V
—, u_ Q -�i -' Q lci
%1 0 z 0
Rainfall Gauge#4 — — Criteria Level